ArticleNursing research
Psychometric testing of the decisional conflict scale: genetic testing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Family Adjustment to Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- The impact of the number of tests presented and a provider recommendation on decisions about genetic testing for cancer risk.Patient education and counseling · 2021Trial
- Shared decision-making in mental health care using routine outcome monitoring: results of a cluster randomised-controlled trial.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2019Trial
- Show Me My Health Plans: a study protocol of a randomized trial testing a decision support tool for the federal health insurance marketplace in Missouri.BMC health services research · 2016Trial
- Development and pilot test of a pregnancy decision making tool for women with physical disabilities.Health services research · 2023Article
- Psychological factors and the uptake of preventative measures in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers: results of a prospective cohort study.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of Decisional Conflict Scale in Chinese Young Women Making HPV Vaccination Decisions.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Using a Tailored Digital Health Intervention for Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing in Swiss and Korean Families With Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Protocol for the DIALOGUE Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the statement format Decisional Conflict Scale for Mandarin version.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Item response theory analysis and properties of decisional conflict scales: findings from two multi-site trials of men with localized prostate cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Determinants of mobile technology use and smartphone application interest in cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Development of a Web-based Family Intervention for BRCA Carriers and Their Biological Relatives: Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Decisional conflict in mental health care: a cross-sectional study.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2018Article
- Cancer Predisposition Cascade Screening for Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndromes in Switzerland: Study Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2017Article
- Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the decisional conflict scale in Chinese women making decision for breast cancer surgery.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Shared Decision-Making During Surgical Consultations for Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is attributed mostly to mutations in the Breast Cancer 1 and Breast Cancer 2 genes (BRCA1/2). Mutation carriers of BRCA1/2 genes have significantly higher risk for developing breast cancer compared with the general population (55%-85% vs. 12%) and for developing ovarian cancer (20%-60% vs. 1.5%). The availability of genetic testing enables mutation carriers to make informed decisions about managing their cancer risk (e.g., risk-reducing surgery). However, uptake of testing for HBOC among high-risk individuals is low, indicating the need to better understand and measure the decisional conflict associated with this process.
objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the modified Decisional Conflict Scale for use in decisions associated with genetic testing for HBOC.
methods: This cross-sectional cohort study, recruited women who pursued genetic testing for HBOC in two genetic risk assessment clinics affiliated with a large comprehensive cancer center and one of their female relatives who did not pursue testing. The final sample consisted of 342 women who completed all 16 items of the Decisional Conflict Scale. The psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using tests of reliability and validity, including face, content, construct, contrast, convergent, divergent, and predictive validity.
results: Factor analysis using principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation elicited a three-factor structure: (a) Lack of Knowledge About the Decision (α = .97), (b) Lack of Autonomy in Decision Making (α = .94), and (c) Lack of Confidence in Decision Making (α = .87). These factors explained 82% of the variance in decisional conflict about genetic testing. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .96. DISCUSSION: : The instrument is an important tool for researchers and healthcare providers working with women at risk for HBOC who are deciding whether genetic testing is the right choice for them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.